JUDGMENT : Servesh Kumar Gupta, J. All these appeals are being adjudicated together, as have arisen out of the same accident. 2. It so happened, Alto Car No. UA-01-4005 owned by deceased Shri Pradeep Narayan Garg, alongwith occupants was being driven by Mr. Garg himself from Kashipur to Ramnagar, while a front coming Eicher Canter bearing No. UP-21N-2946 was coming from Ramnagar to Kashipur. Both the vehicles dashed to each other on 25.06.2010 at 10:00 a.m., and as a consequence, Mr. Garg was so badly injured that he succumbed to such injuries at the age of early forties. That apart, his wife Smt. Shalini Garg, aged about 38 years and his sister Smt. Poonam Bansal, aged about 45 years, were also seriously injured and they were immediately shifted by the Govt. Ambulance to a local Jeewan Rekha, Hospital. Beside a minor son Prakhar Garg, aged about 14 years, was also seriously injured, so much so, having grievous back bone injury, in addition to the head injury. He was pursuing his 9th standard education. Nay, one more son Priyanshu Garg, aged about 13 years was also injured. 3. Petition bearing No. 309 of 2010 was instituted by all dependants viz. wife-Smt. Shalini Garg, including her two sons aforenamed, claming a compensation to the tune of Rs. 2 crores, where against the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 34,67,894/- alongwith 7.5% per annum simple interest from the date of institution of the petition. 4. Smt. Shalini Garg presented a separate claim petition for her own injuries, bearing No. 197 of 2011 wherein she claimed an amount of Rs. 10 lacs, where against the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 2,97,841/-. 5. Master Prakhar Garg presented a separate petition No. 308 of 2010 claiming Rs. 20 lacs, where against the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 9,52,863/-. 6. Another son Priyanshu Garg presented the petition No. 199 of 2011 claiming Rs. 5 lacs and the learned Tribunal has awarded Rs. 1,60,111/-. 7. Remarkably, Smt. Poonam Bansal, who was also said to be admitted in the Jeewan Rekha Hospital (as per deposition of Smt. Shalini Garg), never presented any petition claiming any compensation for the severe injuries, she suffered. 8. It is not disputed that the Alto Car was under the package policy covered, but by making payments to the insurer as follows:- For own damage-basic Rs. 8. It is not disputed that the Alto Car was under the package policy covered, but by making payments to the insurer as follows:- For own damage-basic Rs. 3,446/- After deduction of 20% non-claimed bonus the amount actually paid was to the tune of Rs.2,757/- for this score. Third party basic Rs. 670/- Compulsory personal accident to owner-cum-driver Rs. 100/-, which was covered to maximum payment of Rs. 2 lacs compensation. Workman to employee-I-Driver Rs. 25/-. 9. So towards liability, total payment was made to the tune of Rs. 795/-. This way, the insured paid Rs. 2,757+795=Rs. 3,552/- to the insurer. 10. Eicher Canter was insured for third party, has not been disputed and the driving licence of its driver Mr. Sukhveer Singh was also valid on the relevant date. Driver of the Car Shri Pradeep Narayan Garg was also having valid driving licence. 11. Mrs. Shalini Garg has been examined in the main petition and she has ratified her averments that following the Alto Car, another car, having her near relations as occupants, were coming and such occupants may be named as Archna Agarwal aged about 48 years, Anshu Agarwal aged about 22 years, who was driving such car, Km. Anubhawa Agarwal aged about 20 years, Master Aashu Bansal aged about 20 years, Km. Ajita Bansal aged about 17 years. When this Canter dashed the Alto Car, then to save the rear coming car, its driver Shri Anshu Agarwal took it to its left to strike it with a tree and such car was also damaged, alongwith minor injuries to the occupants therein. This version has been refuted by Mr. Sukhveer Singh (the driver of the Eicher Canter). He has averred that, infact he was checking tyre pressure after parking his vehicle on the left side and this Alto Car was having all the occupants aforenamed, viz. all ten in number, and due to such extra inordinate overloading, the driver Mr. Pradeep Narayan Garg was not in a position to operate its gear and steering properly, with the result, the Car was dwindling from one side to other and as a result, the Car struck the Eicher Canter Truck. When he reached to the police station to report the incident immediately, no heed was paid to his version by the competent police officials present there and they refused to lodge any report. 12. When he reached to the police station to report the incident immediately, no heed was paid to his version by the competent police officials present there and they refused to lodge any report. 12. Report of the incident could be lodged on 26.06.2010, after almost 31 hrs. of the accident by one Mr. Harish Tripathi, who was also employed in the Surya Roshni Company, based at Kashipur, like Mr. Pradeep Narayan Garg. Although, he has not been examined as the witness, in either of the petitions, or even he was not present at the spot, but one thing is very significant, which can be noticed from the contents of the First Information Report, which entails that Shri Pradeep Narayan Garg, alongwith family members as well as known persons, were going from his Alto Car, then the front coming Canter dashed the Car. This version, of an independent person, revealed first time in the police station. Though, after 31 hrs. of the incident is more reliable than the version of Smt. Shalini Garg, disclosing the so called fact of another rear coming car, having the occupants Smt. Archana Agarwal and others, for the simple reason that any acceptance of Smt. Shalini Garg, regarding inordinate overloading of the Alto car, must have jeopardized the grant of the claimed compensation from the Insurance Company. Otherwise, there was no reason that if some Santro Car was coming from behind, and as a result of the accident, the Santro Car driver was constrained to take his car to the left side, in order to strike the same with the tree, but none has been produced or examined in this regard. Shri Anshu Agarwal, the driver of such so called rear coming car or Archana Agarwal, the occupant of that car or even Smt. Poonam Bansal would have been the best witnesss to corroborate the version of Smt. Shalini Garg, but either of them have not been produced. Therefore, I distrust the version of Smt. Shalini Garg that Smt. Archana Agarwal alongwith four others were boarded in the rear coming car, but the real factual position is, all these persons were boarded in the same Alto car. Ignoring the ordinary version of a man, like the canter driver, at the hands of police officials sitting in the chair at the police station, is very common. Ignoring the ordinary version of a man, like the canter driver, at the hands of police officials sitting in the chair at the police station, is very common. We did not live in a State where all these state officials, and particularly police, perform their duties lawfully and with the sense of service to the ‘have nots’ and this fact finds support that FIR could be reduced into writing after 31 hrs. by some influential person, who is the local resident of Kashipur itself. 13. It is pertinent to mention, that Shri Sukhveer Singh is a villager/resident of district Moradabad, so there was every reason for the police personnel at the local station, to ignore him to the extent of scolding in order to stay him away from the police station. Even if the version of Shri Sukhveer Singh is not believed for a moment then, at the most, the liability to satisfy the award can be fastened to the extent of 50% on the Insurance Company of the Eicher Canter Truck and not more than that. 14. In the given facts and circumstances, the whole blame is attached to Shri Pradeep Narayan Garg, who was diving taking all these occupants in his small Alto car. These occupants are also liable and can be blamed for their own negligence, because they did not desist to travel in such a car, which legally was permissible (as per its registration certificate) to carry only three passengers and one driver, instead, nine passengers plus one driver-cum-owner were traveling. Therefore, I am not inclined to fasten any responsibility to satisfy the award on the Insurance Company of the Alto car, for the simple reason that package policy would be interpreted in terms of its premium, which was paid, and the extent of liability stipulated and disclosed in such policy. A perusal of all the stipulation and the contents of such policy nowhere undertakes that the insurer shall be liable to pay any maximum amount determined by the Court, even beyond the terms and stipulations, because after all, it is a contract between the two parties and no Court would travel out of the scope of such terms and conditions. Rs. 100/- premium was charged for personal accident to owner-cum-driver, and the maximum limit of liability to be fastened upon the Insurance Company was to the extent of Rs. 2 lacs only. Rs. 100/- premium was charged for personal accident to owner-cum-driver, and the maximum limit of liability to be fastened upon the Insurance Company was to the extent of Rs. 2 lacs only. So, in this regard, I am of the strong view that in the joint petition of all the claimants not more than Rs. 2 lacs can be fastened upon the Insurance Company of Alto car, and in the individual petitions claiming compensation for the injuries, no liability can be fastened upon the Insurance Company of the Car. 15. However, the Court is not inclined to spare the insurer of the Canter Truck and the arguments of the learned counsel for the Reliance General Insurance Corporation (hereinafter called as the Reliance Company) that the liability should be shifted to the Canter owner, is wholly unsubstantial. The learned counsel has submitted that since this Canter Truck was having a valid permit to be plied only on the Uttar Pradesh roads, but crossing its limits, it was traveling on the Uttarakhand roads, where the accident occurred, and hence it has violated the terms and conditions of the policy. In case of any violation of such terms and conditions, the insurer should be spared and the liability should be fastened upon the Canter owner and the driver. 16. On these aspects, the learned Tribunal has placed reliance upon the two precedents, one is National Insurance Company Ltd. vs. Challa Bharathamma and others, reported in 2004 ACJ 2094. I feel that the precedent of this case is not, at all, applicable in the present controversy, and the learned Judge of the presiding Tribunal has misconceived the whole principle in this regard. In the case (supra) an Auto Rickshaw having three passengers was traveling. It met with an accident, wherein two persons lost their lives and one was seriously injured. This Rickshaw did not have any permit, much less the violation of the terms of the permit for carrying the passengers/occupants. In such circumstances, when this passenger vehicle did not have any permit to carry the passengers and violating its very purpose, wherefor, it was possessed by its owner, then in such eventuality, the liability though fastened upon the Insurance Company, but with a right to recover it from its owner. 17. Here in this case in hand, the Canter Truck was having a permit to ply on the roads. 17. Here in this case in hand, the Canter Truck was having a permit to ply on the roads. The only violation was that it deviated its route from Uttar Pradesh roads to Uttarakhand. Therefore, this Challa Bharathamma’s case cannot be accepted in the context of the present controversy. There may be several occasions where a vehicle cannot reach from one destination to other one in a single Province without traveling few kilometers in the area of other Province. The Canter Truck was not being plied in the breach of the insurance policy nor the insurer could find mentioned of any stipulation in the policy that such Canter Truck will not go out of the boundary limits of the Uttarakhand, in order to remain within the policy limits. 18. The other precedent, as relied by the learned Tribunal, is Kusum Lata and others vs. Satbir and others reported in (2011) 3 SCC 646 is wholly inapplicable in the present controversy for the simple reason because its content is confined to a case where it was a hit and run case. So, the validity of its driving licence of the offending vehicle could not be ascertained, in that eventuality, the Hon’ble Apex Court made the Insurance Company liable with a right to recover. 19. The quantum of the compensation, as awarded in every case, has not been disputed. Therefore, I sustain the 50% liability, in every case, what has been fastened upon the insurer of the Canter Truck viz. Reliance Insurance. Thus, I do away with, the rest of the 50% liability of the Reliance Insurance. The Insurance Company of the Alto car, shall be liable to pay only Rs. 2 lacs, which shall be payable to the dependants as per their respective shares. 20. The delay condonation application moved by the owner of the Truck, having considered the grounds thereon, is allowed in every case, while the delay condonation application moved by Mr. Prakhar Garg, who has presented the petition for enhancement in AO No. 659 of 2015 is hereby rejected because the Court is not satisfied for the supporting reasons, and as a consequence, the AO No. 659 of 2015 shall also be dismissed at the very threshold. 21. In view of what has been set forth above, all the appeals preferred by Reliance General Insurance Company are hereby dismissed. 22. 21. In view of what has been set forth above, all the appeals preferred by Reliance General Insurance Company are hereby dismissed. 22. All the appeals preferred by United India Insurance Company Ltd. are hereby allowed, but to the extent of fastening the liability of Rs. 2 lacs only. 23. All the appeals preferred by Mr. Rajeev Gulati are, thus, hereby allowed. 24. The amounts, which have been deposited, will be paid and adjusted in the terms as hereinabove. Compulsory statutory amount, which has been deposited by the appellants, shall be remitted back to the concerned Tribunal. 25. Let the lower court record be sent back.